Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-13, 15, 18-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wu et al. US 11,026,246 B2.
Claims 1 and 13:
Wu discloses a method implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (See Col 2 lines 8-9, “According to an example a method of wireless communication is provided”) comprising: determining a first priority level of an uplink data transmission based on a second priority level of a first uplink logical channel (See Col 2 lines 51-55, “… wherein identifying the second priority level associated with uplink traffic includes identifying, at the MAC layer, the second priority level as a logical channel priority of one or more logical channels in the communications associated with uplink traffic”); determining one or more uplink logical channels mapped to a sidelink logical channel (See col 16 lines 17- 37 discloses “a unified metric can be used to evaluate both uplink and sidelink traffic to determine priority. For example, where a sidelink or uplink logical channel is configured, the priority associated with each logical channel can be determined to represent the ranking (e.g., importance) of the traffic among all uplink and sidelink traffic (e.g., instead of only among sidelink or uplink traffic) for prioritizing one or the other type of traffic. For example, in determining whether to prioritize the sidelink traffic or uplink traffic at Block 406, optionally at Block 408, a logical channel priority for the uplink traffic can be compared to a second logical channel priority for the sidelink traffic, where the logical channel priorities can be configured for each channel (e.g., for a PSSCH for sidelink traffic and for PUSCH for uplink traffic). In an aspect, priority determining component ... can compare the logical channel priority for the uplink traffic to the second logical channel priority for the sidelink traffic to determine whether to prioritize the uplink or sidelink traffic”. The cited "unified metric" and "comparing" correspond to mapping of UL and sidelink LCHs. Also, see col 16, lines 37-40, “… priority determining component 252 can prioritize the uplink or sidelink traffic based on the LCH priority and regardless of whether the LCH is for sidelink or uplink traffic”); determining a third priority level of a second uplink logical channel based on respective priority levels of the one or more uplink logical channel (See col 16, lines 37-40, “… priority determining component 252 can prioritize the uplink or sidelink traffic based on the LCH priority and regardless of whether the LCH is for sidelink or uplink traffic”. Also see Col 2 lines 45-49, “… wherein identifying the first priority level associated with sidelink traffic includes identifying the first priority level as a highest logical channel priority level among multiple logical channels in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU) associated with the sidelink traffic”); determining a fourth priority level of a sidelink data transmission associated with the sidelink logical channel based on the third priority level, wherein the second uplink logical channel corresponds to the sidelink logical channel (See Col 2 lines 45-49, “… wherein identifying the first priority level associated with sidelink traffic includes identifying the first priority level as a highest logical channel priority level among multiple logical channels in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU) associated with the sidelink traffic”); and transmitting the sidelink data transmission or the uplink data transmission based on a comparison between the first priority level and the fourth priority level (See Col 2 lines 17-20, “…transmitting, based at least in part on determining whether to prioritize the sidelink traffic or the uplink traffic, at least one of the sidelink traffic or the uplink” and col 16, lines 37-40, “… priority determining component 252 can prioritize the uplink or sidelink traffic based on the LCH priority and regardless of whether the LCH is for sidelink or uplink traffic”).
With regards to claim 13, a processor, a transmitter, a receiver and memory (See fig. 2, memory and processor).
Claims 3 and 15:
Wu discloses that the third priority level of the second uplink logical channel corresponds to a maximum priority level or a minimum priority level among the respective priority levels of the one or more uplink logical channels (See Col 2 lines 45-49, “… wherein identifying the first priority level associated with sidelink traffic includes identifying the first priority level as a highest logical channel priority level among multiple logical channels in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU) associated with the sidelink traffic”).
Claims 6 and 18:
Wu discloses determining that the uplink data transmission would overlap in time with the sidelink data transmission (See col 16 lines 1-5, sidelink and uplink transmissions may overlap in time).
Claims 7 and 19:
Wu discloses determining that the sidelink data transmission corresponds to a layer two destination of a remote WTRU (See col 2 lines 9-11, “The method includes identifying, at a media access control (MAC) layer, a first priority level associated with sidelink traffic…”).
Claims 8 and 20:
Wu discloses that the sidelink logical channel is: (1) a highest priority sidelink logical channel in the sidelink data transmission; or (2) a lowest priority sidelink logical channel in the sidelink data transmission (See Col 2 lines 45-49, “… wherein identifying the first priority level associated with sidelink traffic includes identifying the first priority level as a highest logical channel priority level among multiple logical channels in a MAC protocol data unit (PDU) associated with the sidelink traffic”).
Claims 9 and 21:
Wu discloses transmitting of the sidelink data transmission or the uplink data transmission comprises transmitting the one which has a higher priority level (See col 22 lines 3-6, “… can transmit one of the sidelink traffic or the uplink traffic (e.g. and can drop the other one of the sidelink traffic or the uplink traffic) based on the determined prioritization”).
Claims 12 and 24:
Wu discloses that the second uplink logical channel comprises a quality of service requirement that maps to the sidelink logical channel associated with the sidelink data transmission (See col 17, lines 35-49, “if the sidelink LCH priority is used to compare with uplink traffic, a certain set of rules to map the QoS (e.g., PQI priority level) to the LCH priority level can be specified …”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 11, 16, 17 & 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claim 1 and its corresponding claims, on pages 2-4, the Applicant argues “There is no relaying, no adaptation layer, and absolutely no concept of mapping uplink logical channels to a sidelink logical channel to derive a transmission priority. Wu merely compares a local uplink LCH priority with an independent local sidelink LCH priority”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu's col 16 lines 17- 37 discloses “a unified metric can be used to evaluate both uplink and sidelink traffic to determine priority. For example, where a sidelink or uplink logical channel is configured, the priority associated with each logical channel can be determined to represent the ranking (e.g., importance) of the traffic among all uplink and sidelink traffic (e.g., instead of only among sidelink or uplink traffic) for prioritizing one or the other type of traffic. For example, in determining whether to prioritize the sidelink traffic or uplink traffic at Block 406, optionally at Block 408, a logical channel priority for the uplink traffic can be compared to a second logical channel priority for the sidelink traffic, where the logical channel priorities can be configured for each channel (e.g., for a PSSCH for sidelink traffic and for PUSCH for uplink traffic). In an aspect, priority determining component ... can compare the logical channel priority for the uplink traffic to the second logical channel priority for the sidelink traffic to determine whether to prioritize the uplink or sidelink traffic”. The cited "unified metric" and "comparing" correspond to mapping of UL and sidelink LCHs.
Moreover, “relaying” and “adaptation layer” are not recited in Claim 1 and for that reason these terms are not part of the mapping of the claim. It appears that Applicant’s interpretation of the claims is narrower than the actual breadth of the claims. During examination, the claims are given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights